History was made this week and the fashion industry needs to pay close attention.
On 24 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest court, issued a landmark legal opinion: countries can now be held accountable under international law for their role in climate change.
Requested by the UN General Assembly and spearheaded by Pacific Island nations like Vanuatu and Tuvalu, this advisory opinion confirms what many have long argued: climate harm is not just environmental. It’s a violation of human rights and intergenerational justice.
While the ruling doesn’t target corporations directly, its implications for global industries, especially fashion, are far-reaching. With a supply chain stretching across continents and a carbon footprint to match, fashion is a frontline player in a world where climate accountability is no longer optional.
This is a legal shift we cannot ignore.
For the first time in legal history, the ICJ has:
-
Established that states have legal obligations to protect the climate system.
-
Affirmed that insufficient climate action may breach international law.
-
Opened the door for nations harmed by emissions to seek recourse against major polluters.
This isn’t just a moral victory for vulnerable countries either. It’s a legal turning point that could lead to future climate litigation, tougher emissions regulations, and the rebalancing of power between the Global South and high-emitting nations.
And while the ruling is directed at states, not companies, fashion brands will feel the ripple effects, especially those operating in or sourcing from countries already bearing the brunt of climate breakdown.
So why is fashion is in the firing line?
The fashion industry accounts for an estimated 2–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how the footprint is measured across the value chain. But emissions are just the start.
Here’s why fashion is particularly exposed:
-
Many brands manufacture in low-lying nations most vulnerable to climate impacts (e.g. Bangladesh, Vietnam, the Pacific Islands). These same countries now have stronger legal grounds to demand climate justice.
-
Fossil fuel-derived synthetics like polyester dominate textile production, contributing significantly to emissions and pollution.
-
Fashion’s reliance on global freight (air and sea) makes it a major contributor to CO₂ and maritime pollution.
-
Climate-exacerbated heat, floods, and weather extremes are already putting garment workers (mostly women) at direct risk.
In short: fashion’s footprint is global, its impacts are personal, and its exposure to this ruling is real.
And for years, much of fashion’s climate response has been voluntary. Some brands publish ESG reports, some join climate pacts, and some sign up to net zero pledges with varying degrees of accountability or follow-through.
But the ICJ opinion signals that this voluntary era is ending. Governments will now face increasing pressure and legal backing to:
-
Strengthen emissions policies.
-
Enforce mandatory disclosure and climate risk management.
-
Introduce cross-border carbon tariffs or trade restrictions.
-
Hold both domestic and foreign companies to tougher climate standards.
This is especially relevant for fashion companies that rely on international trade, operate in multiple jurisdictions, or sell to climate-conscious markets like the EU, UK, or Australia.
It's a turning point for fashion sourcing and equity.
The ICJ ruling also reinforces the idea that climate justice is economic justice and that developed nations (and industries) have a duty to support those most affected.
For fashion, that means confronting tough questions.
Are we sourcing ethically if our emissions are accelerating sea level rise in the same regions we manufacture in?
What responsibility do brands have to help their supply chain partners adapt to climate risks?
How do we build resilience to help future proof the communities we profit from?
And Pacific leaders have made it clear. They are not passive victims. They are using international law to fight back. The brands that ignore this growing political momentum risk not only damage to their reputation, but regulatory friction and future legal challenges.
So what are the key takeaways for fashion professionals?
1. Climate harm is now a legal issue.
The ICJ ruling establishes that countries (and by extension, industries) have binding responsibilities under international law to prevent and address climate damage.
2. Supply chain exposure is growing.
If your supply chain operates in climate-vulnerable regions, you could be affected by new trade laws, tariffs, or litigation stemming from this opinion.
3. Voluntary action may no longer be enough.
Investors, regulators, and consumers are now watching for evidence of real change, not just pledges.
So how do independent fashion brands respond?
This moment isn’t just about risk. It’s a chance for smaller, purpose-driven brands to show leadership, agility, and purpose in ways big corporations can’t. Here’s a 3-step strategy for using this news to your advantage...
1.Audit your emissions and adaptation risks.
Go beyond Scope 1 and 2. Understand the full lifecycle impact of your products including raw materials, transport, and end-of-life. Assess your exposure to climate risk in sourcing regions. Use publicly available tools like the Higg Index or connect with consultants to model emissions more accurately. Build resilience into supplier relationships especially with small producers in climate-vulnerable regions.
2. Shift from pledges to practice.
Show tangible progress toward a 1.5°C-aligned future. That means real reductions, not just offsetting. Choose low-impact materials like recycled, regenerative, or bio-based textiles, reduce overproduction, and invest in circular systems like repair or resale. Align with initiatives like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to add credibility.
3. Champion climate justice.
Use your platform to support the regions that power your business. This ruling is a reminder that climate action is also about fairness. Partner with local NGOs or garment worker groups in your production countries. Fund adaptation or clean energy projects. Tell those stories in your marketing but centre the voices of the people leading the change.
Because this is just the beginning of more big changes to come, and if you ignore this one, you'll risk being left behind when more and more consumers choose better fashion.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion may not be binding in the way a court verdict is but don’t be fooled. This is a legal, cultural, and ethical shift. A signal to all industries that the time for delay and deflection is over.
Fashion, often a bellwether for social change, now has a choice: lead with integrity, or lag behind as regulation catches up.
This is more than a climate ruling. It’s a wake-up call to rethink the systems we’ve normalised, the impacts we’ve ignored, and the power dynamics we’ve too often exploited.
Ready to lead and run your fashion business with purpose?
If this ruling has you rethinking your brand’s role in the climate conversation, you're not alone. Many founders and creative leaders are realising that sustainability isn't just a department; it's a leadership mindset.
I work 1:1 with independent fashion brands ready to build stronger, future-facing businesses grounded in ethics, innovation and real impact.
If you're ready to turn policy shifts into strategic advantage, let’s talk.
Inbox me, email me, or contact me here for private mentoring details. I’d love to support your next move.
Claire x
